2000 Pa. Super. 315 - Commonwealth v. Beasley’s Empirical Analysis
2000
Citation profile
35 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 35 later decisions — most recently December 2024 · most notably 2002 Pa. Super. 383 - Commonwealth v. Reppert (2002), Commonwealth v. Thompson (2001)
35 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on Terry v. Ohio · Wong Sun v. United States · Commonwealth v. Dugger · Commonwealth v. Cook · Commonwealth v. McCullum
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 35 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[T]he question of whether reasonable suspicion existed at the time of an investigatory detention must be answered by examining the totality of the circumstances to determine whether there was a particularized and objective basis for suspecting the individual stopped for criminal activity. Thus, to establish grounds for reasonable suspicion, the officer whose impressions formed the basis for the stop must articulate specific facts which, in conjunction with reasonable inferences derived from those facts, led him reasonably to conclude, in light of his experience, that criminal activity is afoot.... [T]he test we apply remains an objective one and will not be satisfied by an officer’s hunch or particularized suspicion.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has been vigilant in the protection of the right to privacy guaranteed by Article I, Section 8 of our state Constitution. On repeated occasions, the Court has admonished that: The seriousness of criminal activity under investigation, whether it is the sale of drugs or the commission of a violent crime, can never be used as justification for ignoring or abandoning the constitutional right of every individual in this Commonwealth to be free from intrusions upon his or her personal liberty absent probable case. Commonwealth v. Polo, [ 563 Pa. 218, 226 ], 759 A.2d 372 , [376] (quoting Commonwealth v. Matos, 543 Pa. 449 , 672 A.2d 769, 775-76 (1996)).”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“The first of these [interactions] is a “mere encounter” (or request for information) which need not be supported by any level of suspicion, but carries no official compulsion to stop or respond. The second, an “investigative detention” must be supported by reasonable suspicion; it subjects a suspect to a stop and period of detention, but does not involve such coercive conditions as to constitute the functional equivalent of arrest. Finally, an arrest or “custodial detention” must be supported by probable cause.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.